1. The Defendant’s decision to recommend performance to the Plaintiff on September 22, 2017 in Busan District Court Decision 2017Gauri56921 Claims for Reimbursement.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. claiming compensation against the Plaintiff, etc., on the ground that “The communications line installed in the main cable near the Suwon-dong, Busan-dong, 499-10 was cut and damaged, and the Defendant paid KRW 3,332,70 as the repair cost of the relevant damaged vehicle, thereby the owner of the relevant vehicle subrogatedly acquired the right of the relevant vehicle owner to the owner of the relevant damaged vehicle.”

B. On September 22, 2017, the court filed an objection against the remaining parties, other than the Plaintiff and the Korea Electric Power Corporation, the Korea Electric Cable Co., Ltd., and the ELIS Plaintiff. The court jointly and severally rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) to jointly and severally pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 3,332,70, and delay damages therefrom, and the decision on performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive as the Plaintiff filed an objection after the lapse of the objection period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment order on the cause of claim does not take place even after the res judicata has become final and conclusive, and thus, the lawsuit of demurrer is not subject to the limitation of time due to the limitation of res judicata. Therefore, in a lawsuit of demurrer, the determination of the relevant performance recommendation decision or the payment order may be deliberated and judged as to all the cause of claim stated in the relevant performance recommendation decision or the payment order. In such a case, the burden of proof as to the existence or establishment of the claim shall be borne by the obligee, namely

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009; 2010Da12852, Jun. 24, 2010). However, examining the reasoning of the instant case, it was proven that the existence or establishment of the claim stated in the cause of the instant claim, which was attached to the instant decision of performance recommendation, was proven solely with the statement or image of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 submitted by the Defendant.